The Market for Social Sciences and Humanities Publications
A recent research report from Simba Information analyzes the market for publications in the social sciences and humanities.
A recent research report from Simba Information analyzes the market for publications in the social sciences and humanities.
The US government’s new appropriations bill contains a public access mandate for research articles funded by some agencies.
Richard Huffine, former Director of Libraries for the US Geological Survey (USGS) and current Senior Director, U.S. Federal Government Market, at ProQuest speaks about public access policies.
The Jack Andraka story develops further. SSP pages on Wikipedia are taken down by a disgruntled commentator. And Andraka’s draft paper gets a preliminary review, and both the reviewers and Andraka admit it’s less game-changing than the media has led us to believe.
Some predictions about the future of scholarly publishing, which acknowledges the continuing central role of the major STM publishers.
What happens to non-subscription revenue streams under funding agency public access policies? Will broadening access to articles result in higher subscription prices?
This is a research report, based on a grant from the American Society of Civil Engineers to explore the potential for adverse economic impact on journals from imposed public access embargoes
The story of a teenage science whiz who used free information sources to create a novel cancer screening test may be full of holes. Whether it is or not, it no longer seems the clear, happy story the media wanted to tell.
Journals in the arts, humanities and social sciences are often seen as the poor relations compared with their counterparts in science, technology, and medicine – but perhaps that is starting to change.
Another association of historians has recommended that students be allowed to impose limited embargoes on their dissertations. And so the question arises again: whose work is the dissertation, and who should control it?
A new study, out today, takes a broad look at the usage lives of scholarly journal articles. The information it contains is vital for achieving the balance necessary for Green OA policies to work.
A new study reports on the usage half-life of articles in thousands of academic and professional journals. The results may help in the formation of public access policy and the setting of access embargoes.
Although Jeffrey Beall has done us all a good service by coming up with his list of predatory publishers, his arguments against open access publishing have become shrill and reveal that he is expressing a political viewpoint that obscures the many gradations of opinion concerning scholarly publishing.
The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that Elsevier has issued a sweeping series of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) take down notices regarding Elsevier-published content to Academia.edu, a file-sharing network for researchers and other academics.
This has prompted a storm in the Twittersphere, a response from Elsevier, a number of commentaries on blogs and list-serves, and a truly bizarre article from CNET. Academia.edu for its part is reportedly encouraging authors of affected papers to sign this Elsevier boycott petition despite the fact that their own terms of use prohibit the posting of content that infringes on the copyright or license of publishers such as Elsevier.
Is this a footnote or the end of a chapter in the annals of digital science publishing?
The editor of eLife, on the eve of accepting his Nobel Prize, publishes an article designed to give his journal a competitive advantage. Unfortunately, the errors, lack of disclosure of his incentives, and inappropriate dismissal of incentives made the social graph light up with derision.